Peer tutoring with ESL and below-average readers

Journal of Behavioral Education, VoL 3, No. 2, 1993, pp. 125-142

Peer Tutoring with ESL and Below-Average Readers

Stephen Houghton, Ph.D., 1,3 and Alan Bain, Ed.D. 2

Accepted: October 12, 1992 Action Editor: Charles R. Greenwood

A multiple baseline research design across subjects (pairs) was used to examine the effectiveness of a peer tutoring reading intervention which involved the systematic use of delayed attention, prompting and praise. Eight, fourteen year old, below average readers were trained to tutor eight students of similar age for whom English was a Second Language (ESL ). Continuous data collection indicated that peers were effective in their use of the tutoring behaviors while both peer tutors and ESL readers made statistically significant gains in reading accuracy and comprehension over the course of the intervention.

KEY WORDS: peer tutoring; tutor training; reading achievement; ESL; below average readers.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of peer tutoring on the performance and achievement of both low achieving tutors and English as a Second Language (ESL) tutees. ESL students and below average readers commonly receive reading instruction and other educational services in separate programs, despite the potential advantage to both groups of receiving instruction in more integrated settings. In the present study, the below average readers acted as tutors for their ESL peers because they have a level of English language skills which the ESL students do not, and secondly, data on peer tutoring suggested the possibility of reciprocal benefits.

Existing research suggests that peer tutoring is effective for students with and without disabilities (Maheady, Harper & Sacca, 1988; Scruggs & Osguthorpe, 1986; Wacker, Berg, Choisser & Smith, 1989) and that it may

1Assistant Professor, Department of Education, The University of Western Australia, Western Australia.

ZDeputy Principal, Brewster Academy, New Hampshire. 3Correspondence should be directed to Stephen Houghton, Department of Education, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Perth, Western Australia 6009.

125

lO53-o819/93/o6oo-o1255o7.oo/o �9 1993 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

126 Houghton and Bain

have reciprocal benefits for both tutors and tutees; both improve (Barg & Schuul, 1980; Benaware & Deci, 1984). Furthermore, tutoring effectiveness is related to tutors' behaviors, how they teach. For example, classwide peer tutoring (CWPT) (Greenwood, Delquadri & Carter, 1988) has students serve as both tutor and tutee during a complete session. As tutors, however, they are taught a number of specific instructional behaviors including pre- senting trials, monitoring of tutees' response, correcting and providing points. A recent study (Kohler & Greenwood, 1990) with third grade students demonstrated that tutors also contribute additional supportive behaviors to this "core" tutoring repertoire including prompts like "go faster", praise for correct response, and help with the spelling of missed words among others. Delquadri, Greenwood, Stretton and Hall (1983) reported that a class wide peer tutoring (CWPT) procedure increased the spelling scores of six low achieving third grade students to levels equal to those of the high performing students in the class. Subsequent reviews (see Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986; Greenwood, Ma- heady, & Carta, 1991) have demonstrated the effectiveness of CWPT in increasing students' engagement with academic tasks and in promoting their achievement gains in a number of different subject areas (i.e., reading, vocabulary, spelling, math and language).

While considerable support exists for the application of peer tutoring for children experiencing reading difficulties, there is limited empirical research on its application to the teaching of reading with students who are ESL speakers. Results of existing studies previously cited suggest a strong rationale for the use of tutoring strategies with students who are ESL speakers, particularly where tutors are first language speakers. The inter- active nature of peer tutoring may facilitate natural language interaction in English as well as teach basic academic skills.

A specific peer tutoring procedure for oral reading, the Pause, Prompt and Praise procedure developed by Glynn, McNaughton, Robinson and Quinn (1979) and evaluated by McNaughton, Glynn and Robinson (1981; 1987), was used in the present study. As with most effective peer tutoring procedures (Greenwood, Carta, & Hall, 1988) a specific repertoire of peer teaching skills is taught to tutors for use in teaching their tutees. In this case, a repertoire consisting of pausing after errors, prompting correct response, and praising for responding was trained. This particular tutoring repertoire is designed to reinforce correct reading fluency as well as teach a specific reading comprehension skill in the form of self-correction. This approach is based on research indicating that good readers tended to frequently self-correct (i.e., one out of three errors), whereas poor readers self-corrected only one in 20 errors (Clay, 1979). Thus, self- correction of errors is thought to be not only a natural reading behavior,

Peer Tutoring 127

Tutoring Procedure ]

For Correct Reading

1 We should praise when children read a sentence correctly.

We should praise when children correct themselves after a mistake.

If the Mistake Does Not

Make Sense

We should praise 5 We should when children get a prompt with word correct after we clues about the have prompted meaning of the them. story.

& e.g., we should ask a question

For Problem Reading [

4 We should wait to give children a chance to solve the problem.

I ! If the Mistake Does

Make Sense

6 We should prompt with clues about the way the word looks.

e.g., we should ask about one part that is wrong.

If The Word Is Not Correct

After Two Prompts

If The Child Says Nothing

7 We should ask the child to read on to the end of the sentence.

or, we should ask the child to go back to the beginning of the sentence again.

8 We should say: "The word is..."

McNaughton, S., Glynn, T. & Robinson, V. (1987), Pause, prompt and pra ise : Effective tutoring for remedial reading. Positive Products: Birmingham. England Reproduced with permission.

Fig. 1, The Pause Prompt and Praise tutoring procedure.

but a desirable one particularly when reading is taught from early access to meaningful texts. In this context of reading instruction, Clay (1979) ar- gues that students learning to read learn various strategies for predicting and working out unknown vocabulary, through comprehending what they read. Learning to read is seen as a process of making mistakes (often re- ferred to as reading errors or miscues) and gradually developing efficient strategies using contextual cues, which relate to meaning and syntax, and graphical cues which relate to the visual pattern of letters and words. In this approach to reading, the reader needs to attend to only enough graphic information to confirm or disconfirm predictions. Errors in prediction will


therefore occur and will result in reading errors or miscues which should then be corrected.

The first part of the Pause, Prompt and Praise procedure, that is the Pause, requires the tutor to delay attention to a tutee's reading error for more than five seconds or until the end of a sentence; this allows the reader a reasonable opportunity to correct his or her error. McNaughton and Glynn (1981) discovered that by delaying attention for five seconds not only was the tutee encouraged to self-correct more errors but that reading accuracy was also improved. It is important to note that tutors are first trained to attend to the text that the tutee is reading so that the appropriate tutoring behavior can be applied as and when the need arises. If, after a pause of five seconds, the reader has made either no corrective response or has made another error, the tutor then prompts. The type of feedback or prompt given depends on the nature of the error (see Figure 1). Re- search into the effects of modeling and prompting as strategies for achieving a reduction in reading errors and establishing a correct response in the face of no self-correction was undertaken by McNaughton and Delquadri (1978). They found that while modeling was more effective with very poor readers, prompting was effective with better readers whose error rates were not high. The reason for this being that such readers were able to incorporate the prompts with self-correction strategies already learned. McNaughton et al., (1981) recognized that a miscue or reading error may result from failure to attend to graphic or contextual cues, therefore if the miscue or reading error is a meaningful substitution the prompt is aimed at the graphical features of the word and vice versa. If no correct response is emitted following two prompts, in the interest of continuity, a model is supplied.

Praise, which is the final part of the tutoring procedure, requires the tutor to verbally reinforce positive behaviors by the tutee and to encourage the development of independent and self regulatory skills. It is important that praise of correct reading should be contingent and selective and should be in the form of a specific, descriptive comment rather than just a comment such as "good boy". Apart from general praise, the tutor is required to praise self-corrections and prompted corrections made by the tutee (see Fig. 1).

The effectiveness of the Pause, Prompt and Praise method as a procedure for tutoring oral reading has been demonstrated in primary school settings (Wheldall & Glynn, 1989) and high school settings (Wheldall & Mettem, 1985) and in studies in which parents have been trained to tutor their offspring (Glynn, 1987; Glynn, McNaughton, Robinson & Quinn, 1979).

Peer Tutoring 129

While the Pause, Prompt and Praise tutoring procedure has been rep- licated with various age groups, it has not been applied to students who are speakers of English as a Second Language. Thus, the present study sought to address questions related to the extent to which (a) tutors actually implemented the Pause, Prompt and Praise tutoring behaviors, (b) ESL tutees improved fluency and self-correction rates during tutoring, and (c) gains in standardized reading achievement resulted after the tutoring procedure.

M E T H O D

Subjects

Eight grade nine high school students for whom English is a Second Language (ESL) participated in the study. Of these, five were male. The ages of ESL subjects ranged from 14 years 5 months to 15 years 4 months (M = 14 years 10 months). Three of the students were Yugoslavian, two were Vietnamese, one was Indonesian, one was Rumanian and one was Malay/Chinese. All of the ESL students attended the specialist English language center set up within the Australian urban high school used in this study. This program functioned as a transitional step for ESL students he- fore complete integration into the mainstream education of the Australian high school. During each day of the week, ESL students from each year group were withdrawn from mainstream English and Social Studies classes in order to attend a 75 minute English lesson given by specialist teachers operating in the language center; each student received a total of five 75 minute non-mainstream English classes with these teachers each week. As proficiency in English language skills increases so too does the level of integration into the mainstream of the school.

Each ESL student was matched with a peer tutor of approximately the same age and equivalent grade level. Of the tutors, five were male and three were female. The peer tutors ranged in age from 13 years 7 months to 14 years 4 months (M = 14 years 0 months), attended regular classes in the mainstream of the school and were all of Australian background. The term "below average" reader is used as a preferred descriptor in this study as the more common term for learning disability was a term not used in the education system from which the students came. All tutors were initially identified on the basis of reading assessments using the Gapadol Reading Test (McLeod & Anderson, 1972) which indicated that they were functioning at least four years below their chronological age. These tests were conducted by the school psychologist approximately 8 months prior to the study. No subsequent testing was undertaken.


The ESL students were not randomly sampled, but comprised the total population of students in the year nine ESL class (all met the afore- mentioned criteria), while the peer tutors were randomly selected from a group of 20 students with a minimum four-year discrepancy between reading level a~ad chronological age. With one exception, it was possible to match each ESL reader with a same sex peer tutor who was also closest in reading level (i.e., within 15 months).

Settings

All reading sessions and data collection were undertaken in the school library which was made available, without interruption, for the duration of the research program. Each pair of students worked in separate, partitioned work areas evenly distributed throughout the library. All tutoring sessions were held during a 20-minute time period normally used for school-wide silent reading. Both tutors and tutees had agreed to participate in the present study and, were therefore, not required to attend the silent reading sessions. Standardized reading tests were administered in an interview room in the administration block of the school campus prior to, and on conclusion of, the research program.

Materials

The Trend Reading Scheme (Bird & Falk, 1977) was selected for use in the study because of the Scheme's age appropriate subject matter for the ESL students and peer tutors. The series provides short novels of high interest for older students whose reading skills are low. In addition, each book has a prescribed difficulty level based on controlled changes in word and sentence structure and the series is hierarchically organized in a man- ner that enables systematic progression from one level to the next. Students were assigned a book which approximated their reading age as determined by the results of the standardized reading test. As an additional check on the appropriateness of the students' placement on the series level, each student read 100 words from the assigned book to establish that they were not reading at an accuracy level beyond 90%, nor less than 80%. These cutoffs were based on those used in previous research by McNaughton, Glynn and Robinson (1981) which suggested a criterion of 90% reading accuracy for promotion to a more difficult book.

Peer Tutoring 131

Procedural Measurement

Eight audiotape recorders were used to collect continuous data from each of the 24 peer tutoring sessions conducted throughout the study. This provided data on the degree to which (a) tutors actually implemented the Pause, Prompt and Praise procedure and (b) the reading behavior of the tutees changed. Continuous data were collected on three separate occasions per week for the duration of the experiment, a period of eight weeks. All data were obtained by transcribing 15-minute audiotaped recordings of each session. Three hundred and sixty minutes of recorded information was collected for each pair in total.

Tutors' use of the Pause, Prompt and Praise procedures was directly monitored. Pause reflected the tutor's wait following an error by their tutee. Pause was operationalized as (a) total attention to errors and as (b) delayed attention to an error, the distinction being that delayed attention reflected the correct five-second delay following an error before implementing a prompt. The frequencies of these events were converted to percentages as follows: attention to errors by dividing total tutor attention to errors by total errors minus self corrections multiplied by 100; and delayed attention by dividing instances of tutor delayed attention by total instances of tutor attention to error multiplied by 100. Prompting reflected the tutor's effort to evoke a correction by the tutee. It was defined as (a) total prompts and as (b) prompts that were successful in evoking a correct reading behavior. The frequencies of these events were also converted to percentages as follows: total prompts by dividing the number of prompts used by the total instances of tutor attention to error multiplied by 100; and successful prompts by dividing the number of prompted corrections by the number of prompts used multiplied by 100. Praise reflected the frequency of each tutor's correct use of social consequences. Correct instances of its use occurred when it followed the tutee's self-corrections, corrections evoked by a prior prompt by the tutor, and any other appropriate tutee response.

Dependent Reading Measures

Tutees reading behaviors were defined in terms of the (a) mean rate of words read correctly per minute and (b) mean rate of word errors per minute. These rates were calculated by dividing the total number of words read correctly and the total word errors made, respectively by 15 minutes (i.e., length of session).


A second measure of reading achievement was collected using the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (Neale, 1966). The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability Forms A and B, respectively, was employed to collect pre and post intervention data to assess gains by tutors and tutees in reading achievement. Measures were obtained of participant's reading accuracy and comprehension levels. Reading accuracy on The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability is assessed by subtracting the total number of errors made on each of the six standardized passages from a maximum possible score of 100. This is then translated by means of a table into a reading accuracy score. For comprehension a reader is given one mark for each question answered correctly. The total mark, out of a maximum possible score of 44, is then translated by means of a table into a reading comprehension score. The reliability for parallel forms of the test is .98 for reading accuracy and .96 for comprehension.

Reliability of the obtained data was assessed by having a second trained person independently score 33% of the audiotaped recordings for each of the dependent variables. The raters listened to the tapes and recorded instances of tutor and tutee behavior. Each instance of complete agreement between the two raters that the dependent variables had occurred was counted as an agreement. Agreement was calculated for each of the behaviors using the formula: number of agreements divided by number of agreements and disagreements multiplied by 100. Mean agreement across behaviors was 94%. The reliability levels for tutor's behaviors were as follows: Attention to error (M = 94%, range = 87-98%); delayed attention to error (M = 97%, range = 88-100%); prompts given (M = 92%, range = 90-94%); successful prompts (M = 96%, range = 88-100%) praise following self-correction (M = 98%, range = 96-100%); praise following prompted correction (M = 92%, range = 88-98%); general praise (M = 95%, range = 90-100%). Reliability levels for ESL tutee's behavior were: mean rate of words read correctly (M = 92%, range = 88-96%); mean rate of word errors (M = 94%, range = 90-97%).

Experimental Design and Procedure

A multiple baseline research design across subjects (pairs) was used in the study. The first author met with the tutors in order to introduce the participants to the study prior to the baseline sessions and conducted a general discussion about reading in school and at home. This included questions about the type of reading currently undertaken at school and the way in which the tutors assisted their siblings with reading at home. Fol- lowing this, students were asked if they were willing to assist students in the school's ESL program with their reading; all individuals agreed. The

Peer Tutoring 133

students were then informed that they would be required to tutor their ESL peers on three occasions per week for approximately eight weeks. Baseline data were collected on all eight pairs over an initial period of one week. During this phase of the study, tutors were informed that they should assist their tutees to read. Tutors were told to encourage tutees to read clearly, make sure the book was placed between them and be friendly and patient. Similarities in the data collected by audiotape on tutor behavior over the first week resulted in a decision to randomly assign the pairs to treatment order.

Tutor Training

After the completion of baseline, each of the peer tutors was trained in the Pause, Prompt and Praise tutoring procedure (Glynn, McNaughton, Robinson & Quinn, 1979). Training was completed after a single 65-75 minute session with the first author. Following one week of baseline, three tutors were trained, following two weeks another three tutors were trained, and following three weeks of baseline two tutors were trained. Training included the following:

1. Tutors were provided with a Pause, Prompt and Praise instruction sheet which overviewed the components in the tutoring procedure (see Fig. 1). The first author then read through the instruction sheet with the tutors and explained each of the steps. Examples for each component was provided by the first author who read material from a book which was not related to the reading scheme used in the study. At appropriate points during this reading the first author stopped and asked each one of the tutors which part of the tutoring procedure should be utilized and why. This section of the training comprised approximately 20 minutes.

2. The first author then modeled and role-played the procedure with each of the peer tutors in turn. Appropriate and inappropriate examples of the tutoring procedure were included in order to draw at tention to both the correct tutoring behaviors and common errors. Tutors were questioned about the steps at critical points in the role-plays by referring them to the components desc r ibed in the in s t ruc t ion sheet . This sect ion las ted approximately 20 minutes.

3. The tutors then practiced the procedure by role-playing with each other. One tutor acted as the tutee while the other implemented the Pause, Prompt and Praise procedure. The roles were then reversed so that all tutors had an opportunity to practice the


.

procedure. Contingent verbal positive feedback on the role-plays was provided by the first author. This section of tutor training lasted approximately 25 minutes. A verbal quiz comprising 15 questions relating to the procedure was given to the tutors after they had satisfied the first author that they were following the tutoring procedure as described on the instruction sheet. Records made of the students' responses in the quiz illustrated that each tutor was fully conversant with the tutoring procedure. The mean score for questions answered correctly for the quiz was 14 (range 13-15). This quiz took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to administer.

Peer Tutoring Sessions

Tutoring sessions were undertaken over a period of seven weeks for pairs 1, 2 and 3, six weeks for pairs 4, 5 and 6 and five weeks for pairs 7 and 8. Each session began with tutors and tutees collecting tape recorders and books. They then proceeded to their assigned reading area of the school library which was screened from other pairs. The 15-minute tutoring sessions started with an instruction to begin from the library teacher and then continued according to the procedures described above. On the conclusion of each session, tape recorders and books were returned to the first author and locked away to prevent unscheduled reading. At the end of the third session, the first author listened to the tape recordings made of the tutoring procedure, each week and thereafter, in order to check that the tutors were in fact implementing the procedure correctly. In addition, this check allowed tutors' to be given brief (two to three minutes) positive verbal feedback on their tutoring performances and for tutors to ask questions about certain parts of the procedure should the need arise.

RESULTS

Tutors Use of Pause, Prompt and Praise Procedures

Results indicated that all tutors made considerable progress in correctly implementing the Pause, Prompt and Praise procedure. For example, tutors correct use of Pause (as reflected in tutors use of delayed attention) increased for all 8 tutors following training (see Fig. 2). The average increase in use of delayed attention following tutee's errors, over baseline, was 45.38% with a range from 35% for Tutor 8 to 56% for Tutor 7 The average increase for tutors total attention to errors, over baseline, was 37.75% with a range from 19% for Tutor 5 to 51% for Tutors 2 and 7.

P e e r T u t o r i n g 135

LLI

0

< !

,g g

<

B a s e -

80 line 70

60 5o 'N ,1o 30 20

1o

80 ~ 70~ 60 50 40 30

20 10

0

40 30

20 1

801

70~ 60~

501 40~ 30~

20~ 10~ 0~

Pair 1 i u t i

Pair 2 i !

�9 i , , �9 , , l �9

5 10 15 20 Recorded sessions

Baseline Peer Tutoring

501

30 20

1 Pair 5

�9 ' i l i

80:

6o~ 5oi 40 30J 2O

10 r162 \ Pair 6 0~ - - - ~ .

I ~ ' u u l

801

7O I 60, 50. 40~ 301 20, a ~ 101 0 s " Pair 7

I I i

30

20

10 Pair 8 0 " " - - , . . . . . , ,m �9

o 5 to 15 ~o Recorded sessions

Fig. 2, Percentage of total attention to errors and delayed attention to errors by tutors.

Tutors correct use of prompting showed similar improvement com- pared to basel ine (see Fig. 3). For example, the average increase in


r~

801 ine

70~ 602

50 j 4oi 302 20;

]01

02

8oi 701 601 501 4oi 30~

202

10 ~ 02

801 701 602 502 401 302 201 10. 02

Peer Tutoring

1"lTl[ Pair 1 I ! ! I

Pair 3 I I I I

80' 701

501 4oi 30~ 201 I0~ @_~

O" I , t 5

80 70 60

50 40

30

20 10

0

80

70 60 50 40

30 20 10

0


-" . ~ Pair 5 i i i |

_.=.._._._ ~ i i | i

80

70

4o 30

10

0 ; =

40 30

Pair 4 I0 io 15 ~o o "". ." 0 5

Recorded sessions

Pair 7 ! I

a % prompts given t % prompts successful

to ~5 ~o Recorded sessions

Fig. 3. Percentage of prompting and successful prompting behavior by tutors.

successful prompting, over baseline, was 36.62% with a range from 16% for Tutor 8 to 50% for Tutor 5. The average increase for total prompting was 25.62% with a range from 10% for Tutor 8 to 35% for Tutor 4.

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

Pra

ise

Del

iver

ed b

y T

utor

s

....

. i

tJ

o~

> .

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

,

i,

i

2.

~

ml e-

138 H o u g h t o n a n d B a i n

100 t 9oi 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

~ 100, 9 0

8 0 70,

~ 60, m ~ 50,

~: 40, 30 20 10,

~ loo,

~ 90' t..) 80' "~ 70'

60' "~ 50'

4o 30' 20' 10' O'

100-


I

100, 90 80, 70. 60. 50,

40' Pair t 30.

2 0 10.

0' i i 1 !

1 O0 -

i 90

= ,,,., S 70 60; 50;

i ~ , I . . . . . . Pail 2 2 0 - 3040~10 ~0 ~'~

I mean rate of words read correctly per minute 1100 0 mean rate of word errors per minute ] 9 0

80 70 �84 60 50 40 30 20 10,

~ " O' i i i i

g 0 -

8 0 '

70- 60 ' 50 40- 30- 20 ~ 10- 0-

0 5 10 15 20 Recorded sessions

B&seline Peer Tutoring

Pair 5

i

100 �9 9O 80 ~ 70 ~ 60 5O 4O 30 ~ 20

0 5

P a i r 7

P a i r 8

10 15 20 Recorded sessions

F ig . $. T u t e e ' s m e a n r a t e o f w o r d s r e a d co r r ec t l y p e r m i n u t e a n d m e a n r a t e o f w o r d e r r o r s p e r m inu t e .

Peer Tutoring 139

Increases in tutors correct use of praise was also similar improved over baseline (see Fig. 4). For example, the average increase was 6.07 instances with a range from 2.16 instances for Tutor 8 to 9.0 instances for Tutor 3.

ESL Tutees Improved Fluency and Self-Correction During Tutoring

Coincidental with tutors implementation, tutee fluency was dramati- cally changed. All tutees made (a) increases in the mean rate of words read correctly (i.e., reading accuracy) per minute and (b) reductions in the mean rate of word errors per minute. Figure 5 describes the session by session mean rate of words read correctly and the session by session mean rate of word errors made by individual ESL readers.

The mean rate of words read correctly per minute increased for all 8 ESL tutees over baseline. The average increase, over baseline, was 25.3 words read correctly (per minute) with a range from 13.5 words for Tutee 6 to 33.7 words for Tutee 1. The mean rate of word errors per minute de- creased for all 8 tutees, the average reduction, over baseline, was 2.3 word errors per minute with a range from 0.47 for Tutee 6 to 4.5 for Tutee 3.

Gains in Reading Achievement Following Tutoring Procedure

Results indicated that all students (i.e., tutors and tutees) recorded age gains for both reading accuracy and reading comprehension as measured by the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, following tutoring. In the ESL group, the gains for reading accuracy averaged 9.6 months, with a range from 3 months for Tutee 3 to 24 months for Tutee 6. The gains for reading comprehension for the ESL group averaged 13.9 months, with a range from 2 months for Tutee 8 to 22 months for Tutee 6.

In the Tutor group the gains for reading accuracy averaged 8.2 months, with a range from 1 month for Tutor 7 to 15 months for Tutor 2. The gains for reading comprehension averaged 14.37 months, with a range from 1 month for Tutor 6 to 33 months for Tutor 3.

The mean gains made by both groups from pretest to posttest in reading accuracy and reading comprehension proved to be statistically significant. For the ESL group, mean reading accuracy during baseline was 104.25 months while the post intervention mean was 113.62 months [t (6) = 3.93, p < .01]; mean reading comprehension during baseline was 88.25 months while the post intervention mean was 102.00 months It (6) = 5.43, p < .01]. With reference to the tutor group, mean reading accuracy during baseline was 118.00 months while the post intervention mean was 125.50 months It (6) = 5.09, p < .01]; mean reading comprehension during base-


line was 105.50 months while post intervention mean was 119.87 months [t (6) = 3.90, p < .05].

DISCUSSION

This study has demonstrated that below average readers can be successfully trained to act as effective peer tutors with ESL students. The multiple baseline design employed, indicated that peer tutors successfully mastered each of the three components of the Pause, Prompt and Praise reading procedure, although it should be noted that the changes in the use of praise were not as great as those which occurred in the other two components.

Prior to training, tutors commonly assume their role to be one of providing immediate correction to errors (Wheldall & Mettem, 1985). In the present study peer tutors anticipated difficult words and gave immediate attention to those words prior to intervention. After training tutors showed increases in their total attention to errors and in addition followed the procedures for delaying their attention, thereby allowing readers time to self-correct. The effect of this change in tutor behavior is evident in the increases in ESL tutee's reading accuracy and speed of reading (i.e., number of words read accurately per minute) and the reductions in word errors made per minute. This is in line with McNaughton and Glynn (1981) who discovered that delaying attention for five seconds not only encouraged tutees to self-correct more errors but that reading accuracy was also improved.

Gains in reading accuracy and comprehension, as measured by the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, were made by both groups. These find- ing are consistent with those reported by Wheldall and Mettem (1985) who reported similar, but smaller gains across tutor and tutee groups. These results also support the effectiveness of training tutors in the systematic application of delayed attention, prompting and to a lesser extent praise as part of the tutoring procedure. However, it should be noted that while gains in standard achievement test data are impressive, and consistent with the findings of previous research using the Pause, Prompt, and Praise procedure, no control group was employed in the research design for the present study. This limits the conclusions which can be drawn from the study with respect to the source of gains in reading accuracy and comprehension from pre to posttest on the standardized measure, and suggests the need for replication in future research in order to provide additional support for the effectiveness of the Pause, Prompt, and Praise technique.

The ESL and mainstream students who participated all reported fa- vorably on the program, particularly in light of their current daily 30-minute

Peer Tutoring 141

silent reading period which in their opinion was not used purposefully to effect improvement in their reading skills. The success of the lower ability readers as tutors in this study indicates that not only did these students benefit from the program but that they were capable of both acquiring appropriate tutoring skills and implementing the intervention procedures with a high degree of precision. The tutors consistently reported that they were undervalued in the school and that the peer tutoring program gave them the opportunity to make a positive contribution which would benefit other students. Teachers reported a high level of satisfaction with regard to the way that students' implemented the intervention, particularly the high levels of on task behavior which students' evidenced throughout the program.

In conclusion, the results of this study would indicate that ESL and lower ability readers can benefit from a peer tutoring approach to the ac- quisition of reading skills. While the present study did not address any effects related to natural language or social interaction, future research should seek to establish whether additional benefits occur in these areas. Furthermore, future research might take into account areas of focus such as perceptions of ESL students of tutoring with below average readers; the effects of tutoring procedures relative to various levels of production and comprehension abilities among ESL students, and the use of ESL students as tutors with below average readers.

REFERENCES

Barg, J, A. & Schuul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593-604.

Benware, C, A. & Deci, E., L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 775-765.

Bird, B. & Falk, I. (1977). Trend: Teachers manual, 2nd Ed. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour. (2nd Ed). Auckland:

Heinemann. Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring

game: a classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 52, 225-238.

Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Class'wide Peer Tutoring. Exceptional Children 52, 535-542.

Dineen, J., P., Clarke, H., C. & Risley, T., R. (1977). Peer tutoring among elementary students: Educational benefits to the tutor. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 231-238.

Glynn, T. (1987). More power to the parents: Behavioural approaches to remedial tutoring at home. In K. Wheldall (Ed.) The behaviourist in the classroom: aspects of applied behavioural analysis in British educational contexts (pp. 69-89). London: Allen & Unwin.

Glynn, T. & McNaughton, S. (1985). The Mangere Home and school reading procedures: Continuing research on their effectiveness. New Zealand Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 66-77.


Glynn, T, McNaughton, S., Robinson, V, & Quinn, M. (1979). Remedial reading at home: Helping you to help your child. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Greenwood, C., R., Delquadri, J., & Carta, J. J. (1988). Classwide peer tutoring (CWPT). Delray Beach, FL: Education Achievement Systems.

Greenwood, C. R. Maheady, L. & Carta, J. J. (1991). Peer tutoring programs in the regular education classroom. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 179-200). Washington D C: National Association for School Psychologists (NASP).

Kohler, F. W. & Greenwood, C. R. (1990). Effects of collateral peer supportive behaviors within the classwide peer tutoring program. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 307-322.

Maheady, L., Harper, G. F. & Sacca, K. (1988). A classwide peer tutoring system in a secondary resource room program for the mildly handicapped. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21, 76-83.

Mcleod, J. & Anderson, J. (1972). Gapadol Reading Comprehension Form G. Victoria, Australia: Heinemann.

McNaughton, S., & Delquadri, J. (1978). Error attention tutoring in oral reading, in T. Glynn, & S. McNaughton, (Eds.), Applied behaviour analysis in New Zealand (pp . New Zealand: University of Auckland.

McNaughton, S., Glynn, T. & Robinson, V. M. (1981). Parents as remedial reading tutors: Issues for home and school. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

McNaughton, S., Glynn, T. & Robinson, V. M. (1987). Pause, prompt and praise: Effective tutoring for remedial reading. Birmingham, England: Positive Products.

Neale, M. D. (1966). Neale analysis of reading ability (2rid Ed.), London:Macmillan. Scruggs, T. E. & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1986). Tutoring interventions within special education

settings: A comparison of cross-age and peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23,187-193.

Wacker, D. P., Berg, W., K., Choisser, L., & Smith, J. (1989). Evaluation of the generalized effects of a peer-training procedure with moderately retarded adolescents. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 261-273.

Wheldall, K. & Glynn, T. (1989). Effective classroom learning. Oxford: Blackwell. WheldaU, K. & Mettem, P. (1985). Behavioural peer tutoring: Training 16 year old tutors to

employ the Pause, Prompt and Praise method with 12 year old remedial readers. Educational Psychology, 5, 27-44.

Peer tutoring with ESL and below-average readers

Documents

Transcript of Peer tutoring with ESL and below-average readers